War on Hydroxychloroquine.
- Thread starter GamecockJL
- Start date
- Status
No, but a middle schooler would probably have little trouble taking you apart either. Only an idiot would quote posts that prove they are lying.
There is no war on hydroxychloroquine, right thinking people just prefer trusting truly qualified doctors to media hosts of quacks. Distrust of snake oil salesmen should be ingrained into all people with either a grain of skepticism or the ability to think for themselves. There are trials and if they turn out well in favor of any new cure or drug, it should be treated with cautionary respect. This argument has been going on for as long as supporters of terminal people have been with us. The answer is always the same. Blindly feeding anyone with untested drugs will lead to anarchy in the medical field which otherwise serves us all with good care and respect.
Just returned from a procedure in the hospital today and remain in awe of their performance and dedication in the face of poor higher leadership and supply as well as ignorant ravings of some people.
Having the president as the snake oil dispenser does not change the facts which are unknown without proper trials.
Just returned from a procedure in the hospital today and remain in awe of their performance and dedication in the face of poor higher leadership and supply as well as ignorant ravings of some people.
Having the president as the snake oil dispenser does not change the facts which are unknown without proper trials.
Hope you are all good after your procedure. Everybody has an opinion about this current CHINESE virus (offended by this & you lose) pandemic.
Big Pharma is always going to have influence & money to be made from any illness. I personally do not get why people are so triggered by Trump slapping those media hacks around. Yes he could be nicer about and more respectful, unlike how he is treated by the media. I wouldn’t get so pumped up about it. I live in SC so we are red state regardless, unless Jimmy Carter shows up to run.
i say the following words only because I believe them to be true. Honestly I would bet my paycheck on it. You like facts and studies with evidence. The following statement will be proven true very soon.
Trump wins again in November!!!
What will I be doing?? Enjoying Liberal Tears!!
Join me sandlapper?
Dude, I am saddened that weakness causes me to sometimes enjoy tears by the other side of any argument even if that is common practice. It is a product of the current time but has been with us since we left the caves. The title Sandlapper says that I am SC born in Saluda County but now live in the next state north although I'm still attuned to what happens in SC.
As Trump and republicans continue to make liberals mad enough to drive them to the polls, stuff like the Wisconsin campaign appear more likely. Conventional wisdom said that the republican candidate would win but they became so strident in slapping down the opposition that the liberals were actually motivated to the streets and they won big time.
The current tactic that Trump naturally chose because that is his natural path, followed by his devotees looks like more of the same. The lesson is that you should discourage the opponent, not make him mad. I doubt that Trump can control his instincts and that he will loose in November big time.
As Trump and republicans continue to make liberals mad enough to drive them to the polls, stuff like the Wisconsin campaign appear more likely. Conventional wisdom said that the republican candidate would win but they became so strident in slapping down the opposition that the liberals were actually motivated to the streets and they won big time.
The current tactic that Trump naturally chose because that is his natural path, followed by his devotees looks like more of the same. The lesson is that you should discourage the opponent, not make him mad. I doubt that Trump can control his instincts and that he will loose in November big time.
Because it does not work.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...DcA98RzetUkj1Lz5RsSGvJIGXVJZkhAs6X4lSWjk6VirE
https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...DcA98RzetUkj1Lz5RsSGvJIGXVJZkhAs6X4lSWjk6VirE
Are you telling me the MSM had access to this study 2 weeks ago?
I couldn't care less about that or what news you believe.
Facts:
The drug fails against Covid.
Thus, any claims that it is effective were lies.
Any perceived "War on Hydroxychloroquine" was guided by factual information.
Facts:
The drug fails against Covid.
Thus, any claims that it is effective were lies.
Any perceived "War on Hydroxychloroquine" was guided by factual information.
Heard this same stuff last time. Republicans will be turning out like no other time in history..In my opinion Democrats are going to be disappointed in the black vote. They always get taken for granted by the Dems and it seems they are waking up to that fact.
“According to the analysis, about 28 percent of patients who were given hydroxychloroquine plus the usual care died, versus 11 percent of those getting routine care alone.”
We need to be careful. This is a study that casts doubt on its effectiveness. But let’s wait to see it published in the NEJM and peer reviewed.
this is just another step in the proper testing process.
in the meantime, you will notice Fox and the Trump administration has tamped down their talk about this drug recently. That’s also smart because there is no reason to tout a drug publicly until proper testing proves it.
Yep, Trump's snake oil pitch killed 250% more patients than a placebo. No wonder Fox and Trump have clammed up about it.
I understand that we all want to find a silver bullet to kill this virus, but untested solutions to this virus are dangerous.
Tom Hanks and his wife took it.
Bullshit. Those are NOT facts. That article means nothing. It is not peer reviewed and is no more valid that the other reports that say it works.
The article even says:
"Multiple prospective, randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine are currently underway and will eventually provide information about safety and efficacy. "
Bullshit. Those are NOT facts. That article means nothing. It is not peer reviewed and is no more valid that the other reports that say it works.
The article even says:
"Multiple prospective, randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine are currently underway and will eventually provide information about safety and efficacy. "
Can't figure out why no one tested it with zinc supplementation. Hmmmm.
HCQ is a zinc ionophore, which means it allows zinc to get into the infected cells and theoretically prevent replication.Check out the following starting at 14:50 if you're lazy...
HCQ is a zinc ionophore, which means it allows zinc to get into the infected cells and theoretically prevent replication.Check out the following starting at 14:50 if you're lazy...
Last edited:
Talk to the Doctor's that were also touting the drug. Many, many, many..... So, this test with roughly 300 patient is a great test and proves everything, yet the many others with 1000s of patients are all wrong... You put more faith in this little test because it suits your hate Trump narrative. I'm not saying either one is right but your obvious bias towards the one that is negative towards Trump is laughable.
I hate Trump. He is a pathological liar, a bully and a piece of garbage. I want any drug to be peer reviewed, tested and successful to defeat this virus. I would love for this drug to work and I would be the first to say that it worked. But to cheerlead a untested drug is reckless. And that is what Trump has been doing all month until about a week ago, when he and Fox News has conveniently forgotten about it.
You would also be the first to tell a doctor to give it, if someone you loved was in critical condition with covid-19.
It has been used 45 years and I think that's a good test. If you're dying and you have no other recourse, would you take any drug that may help you recover? Or would you refuse to take it and die?
If an Obama or Democrat president had promoted an unproven drug for a disease, conservatives would have melted down talk radio and fox.
Heck, they had a stroke when Obama wore a tan suit.
We represent a number of healthcare institutions including Emory Healthcare in Atlanta. I have yet to talk to a doctor who has found this drug to be very helpful for this virus while the drug has produced some harmful side effects. That said, there are some experimental drugs that aren’t being discussed that have healthcare professionals excited. The confusion is that this fight of this particular drug is all political. The answer to coronavirus more than likely won’t be hydroxychloroquine. But we need to have it studied first along with the bunches of other drugs we need to study. I would love for this to be the answer. But I haven’t heard anything to meaningful to suggest it is from the medical world.
Let me see if I get this right, you haven't heard from a single doctor who spoke promising about this drug... I mean, other than the medical doctors on TV who have said they've had promising results.
He said it looked promising, and we'll see. He didn't say this drug cures the virus. Good Lord
I think we need to give liberals Viagra, so they can have little hope and have things looking up..
Last edited:
that's the left in a nutshell, and we supposed to believe their crap
exactly,most people don't even need to take this drug but the ones who do literally have no other choice to survive and the left is acting like babies over this, yes there might be rare side effects, there is with basically every drug, but in these instances, its worth the risk. yet they still try to claim its dangerous! absolutely ridiculous under the circumstances.
Don’t confuse them with facts. Bet they don’t fact check that
Joe Biden is a pathological liar. He bullied the Ukraine with our money to make his son rich. He voted against busing black kids to better schools. The plagiarized his life story. And he lied about the man being drunk that hit and killed his wife and daughter in a car accident in 1972, after the man was dead and couldn't defend himself.
You must REALLLY hate Joe Biden.
Yet you tout a study that isn't peer reviewed as proof that Trump killed people. What you really want is for this drug to hurt people, not help people, so that you can stew in your obsessive hate of Trump. That's why you give this study credibility, even though it isn't valid, even by your own standards.
Whether it is worth the risk is not for you or I to say. We don’t get that choice unless we are talking about ourselves.
That is up to an individual and a doctor. We don’t give people just any medicine because there are few options. Heck, we have millions that don’t want options for people to have medical marijuana to relieve pain when they are seriously ill. That’s why doctors don’t operate on some cancers even if the patient is likely to die.
This situation is clear.
Trump and some on talk radio and Fox heavily promoted an untested drug. That was irresponsible. Medical doctors are fully aware of the drug and take their medical guidance from the NIH and CDC, not a politician and talk show hosts.
who in the world wants to be in a hospital ICU and hear their doctor advise them that College drop out Sean Hannity and Trump say this drug might work so we are giving it to you? I can’t think of too many folks. Thankfully, 99.9% of doctors pay no attention to such nonsensical talk from politicians and tv talking heads.
this drug has been approved for compassionate use if a doctor wants to prescribe it. Everyone should be ok with that. I know I am. But I’m for a doctor prescribing virtually anything they think can help in a compassionate case.
proper testing is what is needed and is now being conducted. The VA test appears to show taking the drug didn’t help at all. Some foreign studies have shown various things but all of them have been problematic and not properly done with randomized control groups.
other options are showing promise with more testing needed. That’s a good thing. It’s too bad that because of Trump and some Fox News talking heads that one drug option that might not be a great option sucked up so much of the oxygen in the room with the public. Thankfully, the medical community doesn’t pay attention to that and continues on with proper testing on various options.
Early Data on Remdesivir for COVID-19 Cause Guarded Optimism
Two-thirds of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with remdesivir under a compassionate-use protocol showed clinical improvement, and early reports on phase 3 trials of the drug indicate promise, but researchers stress that definitive randomized, placebo-controlled trial data still are needed to confirm the drug’s safety and efficacy. https://www.pharmacypracticenews.co...vir-for-COVID-19-Cause-Guarded-Optimism/58063
Of course more people who took it died than people who didn't take it. People were only given it if they were in really bad shape to begin with.
I just don't get their argument that this treatment is untested when it's been used for 45 years with very little side effects. I have heard at least 4 doctors on TV that say they prescribe the treatment early to prevent the worsening of the virus. Z pack, Hydro and zinc. The lady in Detroit said if she would have not used this she would have died. One live saved is better than none.
What is hard to understand?
It’s untested for COVID19. That’s why it’s being tested now.
some medicines work great for some things and not for others. there are dozens of variables that have to be accounted for.
a lady in Detroit saying something doesn’t make it true. even if it is true for her, it doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for someone else. That’s what proper testing proves.
She THINKS it worked for her. Did it? We have no idea. I don’t consider that a lie.
if any politician is lying, I’ll say it.
Maybe you should read this and the comments on this link... This is without the bullshit media staying it didn't work...
Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1
Dadgumit.
Just when we just KNEW Trump had been defeated on his HCQ nonsense, questions suddenly arise about multiple flaws/questions/concerns involving the study liberal media so joyously celebrated....
here's some more in addition to the comments pointed out in the actual study pre print linked by 3rd base heckler...
As we said countless times in many of our articles, hydroxychloroquine has become the most controversial drug since President Trump touted the malaria drug as a potential game-changer. Ever since, the mainstream media has repeatedly labeled the drug has “unproven.” With anecdotal evidences that the drug has saved many lives, it seems that anti-Trump sentiment is driving the news cycle about hydroxychloroquine.
Yesterday, there was a study published on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al that claimed that more evidence now hints that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help treat COVID-19. In the study, the researchers found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19.
Now, renowned French Dr. Didier Raoult is responding to the authors, citing biases in the conclusion of the study. “The study published in pre-print on 04/21 on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al has three major biases which invalidate its conclusions, in any case absurd and incompatible with the literature,” Dr. Raoult wrote.
In a two-page response paper, Dr. Raoult said the following:
“In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe. The analysis of the data shows two major biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work :
The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28% deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ± standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)). As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e. the same percentage of lymphopenia.
The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square = 0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where there are significant differences.
These differences are most likely related to the fact that the patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.
Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.
Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020). All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.”
https://techstartups.com/2020/04/22...nse-biases-study-critical-hydroxychloroquine/
Just when we just KNEW Trump had been defeated on his HCQ nonsense, questions suddenly arise about multiple flaws/questions/concerns involving the study liberal media so joyously celebrated....
here's some more in addition to the comments pointed out in the actual study pre print linked by 3rd base heckler...
As we said countless times in many of our articles, hydroxychloroquine has become the most controversial drug since President Trump touted the malaria drug as a potential game-changer. Ever since, the mainstream media has repeatedly labeled the drug has “unproven.” With anecdotal evidences that the drug has saved many lives, it seems that anti-Trump sentiment is driving the news cycle about hydroxychloroquine.
Yesterday, there was a study published on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al that claimed that more evidence now hints that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help treat COVID-19. In the study, the researchers found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19.
Now, renowned French Dr. Didier Raoult is responding to the authors, citing biases in the conclusion of the study. “The study published in pre-print on 04/21 on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al has three major biases which invalidate its conclusions, in any case absurd and incompatible with the literature,” Dr. Raoult wrote.
In a two-page response paper, Dr. Raoult said the following:
“In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe. The analysis of the data shows two major biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work :
The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28% deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ± standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)). As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e. the same percentage of lymphopenia.
The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square = 0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where there are significant differences.
These differences are most likely related to the fact that the patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.
Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.
Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020). All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.”
https://techstartups.com/2020/04/22...nse-biases-study-critical-hydroxychloroquine/
- Status
